TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- U.N. duplicity
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
U.N. duplicity
The U.N. Oil-for-Food Scam: Time for Hearings
by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., and James Phillips
WebMemo #438
March 1, 2004 | printer-friendly format |
In the ten months since the downfall of the Iraqi dictatorship, a clear picture has emerged of how Saddam Hussein abused the United Nation�s oil-for-food program. The Iraqi Governing Council has begun to release critical information detailing how, in the words of The New York Times, �Saddam Hussein�s government systematically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions.� In effect the program was little more than �an open bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks.�[1] The seriousness of these charges warrants investigation by the U.S. Congress and an independent, Security Council-appointed commission.
Serious Allegations
The evidence emerging from Baghdad confirms the suspicions of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), which had earlier estimated that the Iraqi regime generated several billion dollars in illicit earnings through surcharges and oil smuggling in the period between 1997 and 2001.
A mosaic of international corruption is also emerging in the patchwork of politicians and businesses across the world that benefited from the oil-for-food program and helped keep Saddam in power. The Iraqi Oil Ministry recently released a partial list of names of individuals and companies from across the world that received oil from Saddam Hussein�s regime, allegedly at below-market prices. Unsurprisingly, French and Russian names dominate the list, with former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and the �director of the Russian President�s office� listed as beneficiaries. The list also implicates U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the oil-for-food program, who has stringently denied any wrongdoing.[2]
History of the Oil-for-Food Program
The oil-for-food program was established by the United Nations Security Council through Security Council Resolution 986 in 1995 "as a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people" while economic sanctions remained in place. Of Iraq's population of 24 million, 60 percent were dependent on food shipments administered through oil-for-food.
Between 1996 and 2003, the program generated over $63 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. With little oversight from the U.N., the Iraqi dictatorship was able both to circumvent and to exploit the oil-for-food program. It is suspected of selling its oil at bargain basement prices that benefited numerous middlemen while overpaying for various imports, which allowed it to reward suppliers. The program was officially brought to an end in November 2003.[3]
Congressional Hearings
The charges being leveled against the United Nations over its handling of the oil-for-food program are of such a serious nature that they warrant congressional hearings by both the House and Senate. The hearings should investigate how Saddam Hussein was able to exploit a vast U.N.-operated sanctions program to enrich his family, influence foreign governments, and prop up his brutal regime. The hearings should investigate and expose the vast network of politicians and companies that helped keep Saddam Hussein in power. Congress should also examine the close ties between the Russian and French governments and the Iraqi regime, and how this influenced the international debate over Iraq.
A Security Council Commission of Inquiry
In addition to congressional hearings, as a key member of the U.N. Security Council, the United States should lead the way in calling for a wide-ranging and in-depth independent investigation into the way in which the U.N. handled the oil-for-food program.
The Commission should be appointed by the Security Council, but should be completely independent of the United Nations and made up of non-U.N. employees. Great care should be exercised by the United States and Great Britain to prevent such a Commission from being unduly influenced by other Security Council members who may have a vested interest in protecting their own officials.
Conclusions
The abuse of the oil-for-food program was the result of a staggering management failure on the part of the United Nations and has raised troubling questions about the credibility and competence of the world organization. Several conclusions can be drawn:
The oil-for-food debacle reinforces the need for sweeping reform of the United Nations bureaucracy and the need for an annual external audit if its accounts.
Senior U.N. bureaucrats with responsibility for running the oil-for-food program should be investigated and held accountable for their actions. In particular, the role played by Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the Office of Iraq Programs, should be carefully scrutinized. If the allegations against Mr. Sevan are true, he must be prosecuted.
Overall responsibility for the program�s failure should lie with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in effect turned a blind eye to one of the biggest financial scandals of modern times. The U.N.�s inability to successfully manage the oil-for-food program represents a spectacular failure of leadership on the part of Mr. Annan.
The mismanagement of the oil-for-food program raises serious doubts about the U.N.�s ability to manage future programs of a similar scale. The United Nations should never again be placed in charge of the administration of an international sanctions regime.
The links between Saddam Hussein�s regime and leading European companies and politicians were extensive. The United States should call for those who violated the sanctions regime to be prosecuted by their governments.
The United States was right to exclude the U.N. from a key role in administering post-war Iraq � the U.N. was clearly incapable of performing such a function.
The Pentagon was right to bar companies from nations who had opposed regime change in Iraq, such as France and Russia, from bidding for U.S.-funded contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. Russian and French companies in particular benefited from the exploitation of the oil-for-food program.
Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., is Fellow in Anglo-American Security Policy, and James Phillips is Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs, in The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation.
Two things might happen from this. The U.N. will capitulate behind the scenes to U.S. interests and their ongoing investigation. Or once the U.S. investigation is finalized (several months from now) it will get blowed-up on the international scene. Whatta yall think?
Further evidence of UN incompetence. Nothing new really, the US has known for a while. "Oil-for-palaces" was a catch phrase used on Capitol Hill for at least 5 or 6 years. But perhaps it will start the ball rolling on some internal changes that need to be made.
Don't expect anything major though - if one diplomat loses his post, and thus loses the opportunity to have nice, expensive dinners in New York - then they'll all get scared and stop making reforms.
yup...tisk...shame
thanx.
aside from IMPEACH ANNAN
I'll say something solid:
This will make the use of the UN in actual roles the USA wished to delegate responsibility more and more of a challenge.
Although the UN will undoubtedly retain its "neutral" good standing face with the rest of the world when this fiasco is over, it will be hard for pragmatist to actually justify giving valuable operations to the control of the UN.
It basically tells us the UN can't be counted on for pragmatic solutions, not only the political solutions we've known they have been incapable of for years.
The UN, has basically suffered a great blow to its "operations" arena, something the UN was valued for even by neo-hawks. Now that the UN has demonstrated it is worthless in both operations and political arena, justifying allocations to it... even if the world demands it will be harder and harder for the US to comply with. And this will of course look the US look like the bad guy.
... This issue also should bring question to all other operations of the UN, I'm sure investigations would turn up many of their humanitarian initiatives are no less corrupt than the oil for food program was.
That's why I've always been in favor of moving the UN to Paris, France where it belongs and washing our hands of the ineffectual organization.
[[[smoke]]]
Sorry but one of the main reasons the UN does not work (sometimes) is due to America not giving two shits about any UN rulings (as we see over Iraq and Israel). What on EARTH makes you think that any other country will ever follow any UN resolution when they see America (and Israel) ignoring the ones they dont agree with? And why should they?!
And what would you suggest we replace the UN with? Anything?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry but one of the main reasons the UN does not work (sometimes) is due to America not giving two shits about any UN rulings (as we see over Iraq and Israel). What on EARTH makes you think that any other country will ever follow any UN resolution when they see America (and Israel) ignoring the ones they dont agree with? And why should they?! And what would you suggest we replace the UN with? Anything? |
An interesting editorial tidbit from Barron's this weekend.
Link
| quote: |
| Suspect U.N. Motives Was it always about the oil, after all? ONE YEAR AGO, as the United States went to war in Iraq without permission of the United Nations, we often heard that America's true motivation had nothing to do with freeing Iraqis from their murderous dictator, or with reducing the threat that Saddam Hussein would obtain, use or distribute nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or with bringing the Iraqis the benefits of democracy. "No war for oil," was the slogan on banners as millions demonstrated against the conflict, against giant international companies, against capitalism and against the country that is capitalism's home base. The slogan rankled because it was so stupid: If America wants oil, it can buy it at a price determined by supply and demand. Using military power just raises the price. Now it appears that oil was hidden at the center of the debate about going to war. Some of those who said "no war" or who insisted that only the United Nations could make the war legitimate were trying to retain their privileged access to Iraqi oil. They achieved that access through the misconceived, misnamed and mismanaged "Oil for Food" program operated under United Nations cover. Cynics posing as sentimentalists had helped Saddam Hussein get around economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil to raise money for food and medicine for its citizens. It was, of course, just another way of abusing those citizens. At least $47 billion worth of oil was sold under the program, and the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated last week that at least $10 billion flowed back to Saddam Hussein, his cronies and his partners. Kickbacks and illicit profits flowed in many directions, apparently including French and Russian business figures, international politicians and even the U.N. director of the Oil for Food program. Iraqi documents may indicate who got what; then the world will have to decide whether the U.N. can retain any legitimacy on any topic. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry but one of the main reasons the UN does not work (sometimes) is due to America not giving two shits about any UN rulings (as we see over Iraq and Israel). What on EARTH makes you think that any other country will ever follow any UN resolution when they see America (and Israel) ignoring the ones they dont agree with? And why should they?! |
We're supposed to be the civilised ones. We're the ones supposed to be setting an example. Without that, there is no legitimacy, and, as you say, UN rulings are not worth the paper they are written on. What happens when governments/states act in any which way they please with no legitimacy? The people revolt and attack. Exacty the same in the international community. When the rulers (America and the West) act any which way the please with no legitimacy, the little countries (the ones we fuck over) will revolt and attack...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley We're supposed to be the civilised ones. We're the ones supposed to be setting an example. Without that, there is no legitimacy, and, as you say, UN rulings are not worth the paper they are written on. What happens when governments/states act in any which way they please with no legitimacy? The people revolt and attack. Exacty the same in the international community. When the rulers (America and the West) act any which way the please with no legitimacy, the little countries (the ones we fuck over) will revolt and attack... |
Does it?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Does it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus yup |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley We're supposed to be the civilised ones. We're the ones supposed to be setting an example. Without that, there is no legitimacy, and, as you say, UN rulings are not worth the paper they are written on. What happens when governments/states act in any which way they please with no legitimacy? The people revolt and attack. Exacty the same in the international community. When the rulers (America and the West) act any which way the please with no legitimacy, the little countries (the ones we fuck over) will revolt and attack... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo So I guess what I am hearing from you is regardless of the ineptitude an inaction of the worlds ruling body (the U.N.) that no government can act upon what they see as a threat to humanity or sovereignty of humanity without approval and unanimous compliance of at least the permanent members of the security council. Right? |
Georgey, thats cute.
So better be dead and civilized than a live and uncivilized ?
You sitll think international law can be legally binding and that the US is its biggest opponent. It's simply adorable.
The only way you can have binding legal law is if you can enforce it.
And the USA is the enforce. Sorry if you don't like the "cowboy sherrif" image that goes with the law.
Once the world doesn't look like the wildwest, the USA won't have to look like the cowboy you despise. 
Mmmmmm, no, didn't expect a die-hard supporter of the current Israeli regime to show any signs of being civilised...force of habit eh?
| quote: |
| The only way you can have binding legal law is if you can enforce it. And the USA is the enforce. Sorry if you don't like the "cowboy sherrif" image that goes with the law. |
Georgey, but what law has the US violated?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Mmmmmm, no, didn't expect a die-hard supporter of the current Israeli regime to show any signs of being civilised...force of habit eh? Again, try and think outside the Israeli example! Law enforcers themselves, in a civilised society, have to abide by the law they enforce, otherwise they have no legitimacy. Where there is no legitimacy in a law, nobody will abide by it What are the implications of that in the international community? What are the implications of that in relation to mine and your personal safety? I have no problems what so ever in America enforcing international law and I would applaud it for doing so. However, if America itself refuses to abide by the laws it enforces, why would anyone else want to? And why should they? And why should Americans react with such disgust and surprise when they are attacked? The same goes for any situation where there is a lack of legitimacy... |
| quote: |
Some of the reasons why I think Kofi Annan and the UN is largely ineffective: The recent events in Iraq have brought the United Nations into the spotlight more than ever before. However, if we look back at previous failures, we should not be surprised by the current display of ineffectiveness. The United Nations did little to stop the genocide in Cambodia or the actions of China in Tieneman Square. The genocide in Rwanda was ruthlessly carried out under the nose of the United Nations. In fact, Kofi Annan was the head of U.N. peacekeeping at the time and did nothing. A cable sent to Annan in January 1994 advising of the likelihood of a campaign of genocide in Rwanda got a response advising that the United Nations should "avoid entering into a course of action that might lead to the use of force and unanticipated repercussions." The use of force, at least by the U.N., was avoided and there were no "unanticipated repercussions." There were, however, the anticipated repercussions of a systematic campaign of murder and terror in which an estimated 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. More recently, the civil war in the Congo has resulted in claims just last month of cannibalism, rape, torture and kidnapping by the rebel forces, apparently supported by Uganda. Estimates are that approximately 2 million people have died in this fighting since 1998. Uganda and the Congo are both member nations of the U.N. But Kofi Annan, rather than proposing swift action against clear and widespread atrocities, is reserving his harshest criticism for the United States. And now the much-celebrated International Tribunal for Rwanda has become yet another UN bureaucratic disaster. Repeated UN investigations have found widespread mismanagement, wastage, incompetence, and corruption. The Tribunal has prosecuted a fraction of the Rwandan genocide suspects it holds in custody. It has even been criticized by its own Appeal Court of prosecutorial incompetence and failing to observe elementary due process considerations. Sadly, the Tribunal, which should have brought justice to the region, has instead become another multi-million dollar UN boondoggle. Srebrenica, a name now associated with one of the worst crimes in Europe since WWII or as Judge Riad of the ICTY described it, ``..... a place where thousands of men were executed, hundreds buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered, children killed before their mother's eyes, and a grandfather was forced to eat the liver of his own grandson.'' These are truly scenes from hell written on the darkest pages of human history. The UN created a safe haven in Srebrenica and encouraged civilians to enter en masse so as to be under UN military protection. Only one condition applied--entry into the UN safe haven required Muslim fighters to surrender their weapons. This they did, hoping that if ever the need arose they would get them back. They were to be sorely disappointed on that score. When it became apparent that General Mladic was separating the men from the women and then killing them in the nearby fields, the Dutch UN troops began pleading for UN military support. But, just like Rwanda, the UN leadership once again became paralyzed and failed. They dithered over air strikes, they refused to send in troops to help the beleaguered Dutch and in the end, just as with Rwanda, the UN withdrew their troops. This permitted General Mladic to remove an estimated 5,000-8,000 Muslims from in and around the UN compound in Potocari and slaughter them. To this day the United Nations and no UN official has ever been held criminally or civilly liable, let alone even publicly admonished, for their massive failures in Srebrenica. All the families of the thousands of victims can do now is pick up the pieces of their broken families and attempt to restart their lives. East Timor. In late August 1999, the UN and now Secretary General Annan, called for elections on the small island country of East Timor despite disturbing evidence that hard line elements in the Indonesian military were preparing to cause wide spread public disorder so as to disrupt the elections. The UN failed to provide adequate protection for the civilian population. Dili was burnt to the ground and East Timor was engulfed in violence. After weeks of killing and millions of dollars of damage, the Australian government sent in ground troops to restore order to East Timor; but by then, it was too late to save East Timor from UN bungling. Sierra Leone. So bad was the UN's conduct in Sierra Leone in June 2000 that their long time supporter and friend, Medicins Sans Frontieres, felt compelled to speak out and complain. MSF complained bitterly that the UN troops fled a RUF attack on the Sierra Leonean town of Kabala. In so doing MSF said that the UN had failed its mandate to protect civilian populations, many of whom were sick women and malnourished children in the MSF hospital. Cambodia. There is now mounting evidence that UN Peacekeeping troops actually caused an explosion of AIDS in Cambodia in 1992. In January of last year Richard Holbrooke, the then US Ambassador to the UN, launched an unprecedented attack upon the UN during his last UTN address saying ``..... it would be the cruelest of ironies if people who had come to end war ..... were spreading the most deadly of diseases ..... it will kill more people and undermine more societies than even the most critical conflicts we discuss here.'' And despite Ambassador Holbrooke's warnings there are concerns that right now in East Timor UN staff could be causing yet another AIDS epidemic. Some things just never seem to change. |
good one Georegy!! 
Now you've really done it! You've finally done it man. NOW you got him started
good luck buddy.. If you need me, I'll be running to a nuclear bunker.
Ok so I'm having a hard time finding my old criticisms of the UN. That's ok because I always have time to add new stuff. Going back to the UN's failures during the Balkan war, I think the dutch failure in Srebrenicia is a prime reflection of the fundamental flaws of the UN.
A report conducted by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation concluded that while the Dutch were to blame for failing their peacekeeping dutes, they also faced an impossible task assigned by the UN. First of all, a 750 man strong force equipped with apc's, anti-tank guns, and machine guns was slated to protect the "safe haven" from Serbian forces equipped with tanks and heavy artillery. This half-assed protection force then proceeded to disarm the Bosnian forces (only) as per the 1993 cease-fire agreement. When the Serbs initiated hostilities once more in 1996, the Bosnians requested their arms back only to be rebuked by UNPROFOR since it was "their" responsiblity to defend the enclave. After Serb inititated hostilities, the Dutch requested NATO airstrikes but were refused by UNPROFOR headquarters to relay the requests to NATO. Eventually the Serbs siezed 400 UN hostages from Sarajevo as a means to end any threat of UNPROFOR airstrikes. The dutch eventually capitulated to Serbian demands and relinquished the "safe haven" after being outgunned and isolated. So in the end, after much analysis and admittance of guilt such as this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/521825.stm
What does the UN conclude? Koffi: "Peacekeepers must never again be deployed into an environment in which there is no ceasefire or peace agreement." Well that's a bloody great plan! Here's my plan: I'm not going to buy a lottery ticket unless I'm sure I can win! What kind of mandate does this establish for an international body designed to regulate the rules and actions that countries are supposed to follow? The UN argument is this: if you're a bad boy, we'll scold you and tell you to go to the corner. If you're a REALLY bad boy then we're going to whimper in the corner while we send you threatening emails establishing our resolve! Case in point ... what has the UN done with Korea?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2928095.stm
They can't even condemn the actions of N. Korea, much less take any action, in response to their pulling out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty!
I've also seen a long history of UN incompetance, ineffectivness, and one-sidedness with respect to Israel. In the 1950s Israel was criticized for launching retaliatory strikes against Palestinian fedayeen bases in neighbouring Arab countries, while the UN said nothing of cross-border terrorist provocations. During the Suez Conflict of 1956, a series of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions condemned Israeli "aggression" against Egypt, with no reference to legitimate Israeli complaints about Egyptian military provocations such as Nasser's closure of the Straits of Tiran to the Egyptian support for and encouragement of Palestinian terrorist incursions from Gaza, to the Egyptian-Czech arms deal. To top it all off, in the spring of 1967, Secretary-General U Thant's willing and hasty sprint to capitulate to Nasser's demand for the withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai merely exacerbated the path towards war.
As Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Abba Eban said at the time: "What is the use of a United Nations [peacekeeping] presence if it is, in effect, an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain?" And General Rikhye (the Indian commander of UNEF in the Sinai thought) was "bitterly disappointed - the UN could have tried any number of delaying tactics."
Ultimately, resignation to delegate comprehensive responsibility towards the UN has been a failure time and time again. Give me a UN worthy of support and I shall support it. Otherwise I'm not goint to embrace its false sense of "protection" in crafting foreign policy.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus good one Georegy!! Now you've really done it! You've finally done it man. NOW you got him started good luck buddy.. If you need me, I'll be running to a nuclear bunker. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley occrider...I do acknowledge your valid concerns over the UN but you have assumed a lot a bout the UN that needs clarifying... For a start, the UN does not have an 'army' or a military force. |
| quote: |
The UN is not supranational like the EU is, so UN 'laws' are not binding if they cannot be enforced. |
| quote: |
What is the UN? And who controls it? Well, as we are talking militarily (only a small part of what the UN actually does but anyway) it is gonna be the Security Council...USA, UK, France, Russia, China plus others. So when the 'UN' fail to act, it is not the UN but those on the Security Council. If they oppose action, it is not gonna happen 'legally'. You said the UN was ineffective against China...well no shit Sherlock they are on the Security Council. |
| quote: |
You said there has been a one sided approach to Israel, well I agree, Israel has not had to comply with any resolutions passed against it, and America has seen to it that a great deal many other resolutions have not been able to be passed in the first place. Yet compare that with Iraq, where sanctions killed 500,000 people (how's that for terrorism?) |
| quote: |
The failure over the Balkans was not the UN's fault. That was due to the ineffectivness of the EU countries who thought they could deal with it themselves (and that is why the EU then set in motion plans for a Common Security and Defence Policy to ensure it had the capabilities to take part in these kind of missions where America was reluctant to becom involved) The UN does need to be reformed, especially with regards to the Security Council (I would argue for qualified majority voting on all issues) |
| quote: |
But the major issue facing the UN is the US, whether you like it or not. If the US lives by the laws of the UN then fine, it can work, but if the US choses to ignore the UN everytime it does summat America does not agree with then it cannot work ever. Now I'm not singling out America cos I dont like it or blame it for all the worlds problems (cos neither of those are true) but I am singling it out by default...America is the most powerful nation on Earth, and can get away with doing what it likes...but that means the UN will not work when other countries, because of what they see America doing, ask themselves why they should abide by international law when America does not have to... |
OK, you know my feeling about the UN, I think it is helpful to say the least, and can/has been used for great good.
But lets say you are right, the UN is ineffective, whats your alternative?
Do you think that we need an international organisation to keep the world in check?
Or do we just let everyone do what they want?
Do you think the world would be safer with or without the UN or a similar organisation?
Have we come to the conclusion that the UN is ineffective only because it has had opposite views to America? It opposed the Iraq war, it is for setting up an International Criminal Court and champions the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. All of which the US opposes. Is that why we think the UN is ineffective? Because it has dared voice differing views to that of the US?
Onto the military side, only one country in the world has the planning capabilities to mount a successful military operation over a long period - guess who? The only other alliance that can do the same is NATO - guess who the leading voice in that is?
The UN has no military planning capabilities! It doesn't even have a military! The UN is a humanitarian peacekeeping organisation looking at it in a military context. Who fights in UN operations? Who wear the 'blue caps'? Us! If there is a conflict in the world, and the UN decide the best course of action is military, then it is us that fight in it. However, if the conflict is on a large scale, only the US or NATO can successfully take on the mission. So what happens when these two dont want to know, as happened in Bosnia?
So you see again, the UN is dependant on the US for support. Like it or not, whether the UN works or not is in the hands of the US...
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.